↓ Skip to main content

At What Price? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Trial of Labour after Previous Caesarean versus Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
At What Price? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Trial of Labour after Previous Caesarean versus Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0058577
Authors

Christopher G. Fawsitt, Jane Bourke, Richard A. Greene, Claire M. Everard, Aileen Murphy, Jennifer E. Lutomski

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 113 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 22%
Student > Master 24 21%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 19 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 21 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2021.
All research outputs
#4,301,122
of 21,377,679 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#55,023
of 183,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,273
of 171,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,150
of 4,696 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,377,679 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 183,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 171,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,696 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.